I haven't tried it with slides but with prints, it's (sorry for the over used phrase) a no brainer. I've used my 100mm Macro on a 5DMII to shoot almost postage sized originals, worked in the ACR engine (I used Lightroom) and I can't think of ever using a flatbed to do this kind of work again. The results were really very good.

I am far from being an expert, but after tearing my hair out trying to deal with sensor blooming in the Coolscan VI and V, I am using a D800E with bellows and macro lens to digitize Kodachromes. Faster, better DR, pretty much equal resolution, true RAW files in LR/ACR, plus with a slide holder with movements I can stitch for larger files if I want to. (I am currently using the D800E with Olympus bellows and 80mm macro, with the Olympus slide holder extension modified with a Konica 4-way slide holder.) A no-brainer for me. On the enlarger head/light box method, the critical issue is alignment, IMO.

"raw" from the copying stage into LR, but the original you are copying is film with an embedded characteristic curve and fully processed; also resolving power is what the media delivers. So yes, your procedure is delivering what you can get from the film, but it isn't like scene-referred raw from an original digital capture.

"raw" from the copying stage into LR, but the original you are copying is film with an embedded characteristic curve and fully processed; also resolving power is what the media delivers. So yes, your procedure is delivering what you can get from the film, but it isn't like scene-referred raw from an original digital capture.

What is necessarily "more raw" about it, John? I tend to think the main advantages of the camera route would be speed and the quality of the lens. In both cases sensor data needs to be converted to usable output. If you scan it happens at the scan stage (which you can do in linear gamma with no adjustments); if you use the camera it happens with raw conversion and further processing. I've often wondered about this raw vs raw when it comes to scanning with a camera versus with a scanner and always come back to the notion that the media is the real binding constraint. I can see implementation quality differing - perhaps a lot - depending on what hardware and software one is using in each case, but generically I'm not clear on the notion that the fundamentals are all that different.

What is necessarily "more raw" about it, John? I tend to think the main advantages of the camera route would be speed and the quality of the lens. In both cases sensor data needs to be converted to usable output. If you scan it happens at the scan stage (which you can do in linear gamma with no adjustments); if you use the camera it happens with raw conversion and further processing. I've often wondered about this raw vs raw when it comes to scanning with a camera versus with a scanner and always come back to the notion that the media is the real binding constraint. I can see implementation quality differing - perhaps a lot - depending on what hardware and software one is using in each case, but generically I'm not clear on the notion that the fundamentals are all that different.

Mark, I have profiled SilverFast and the Nikon Coolscan 5000. I generally configure SF for no adjustments other than dust reduction (on chromes), and of course the custom ICC profile made with the Wolf Faust targets. I gave up trying to dial in the best scan preview by tweaking settings. Maybe (probably) I'm clueless, but it's just a P.I.T.A. to deal with. So my RAW vs. RAW comment has more to do with the workflow and the acquisition of the data, but also the flexibility of that data in post capture. I think I'd prefer to massage the CR2/DNG info in LR4, rather than working with a scanned TIF in LR4.

"raw" from the copying stage into LR, but the original you are copying is film with an embedded characteristic curve and fully processed; also resolving power is what the media delivers. So yes, your procedure is delivering what you can get from the film, but it isn't like scene-referred raw from an original digital capture.

I was thinking in terms of being able to extract additional DR by recovering highlights in PP that would have values burned in a scanned TIFF. This is sort of theoretical since I haven't had a chance to really wring out what the D800 can do, my thought is that it would be able to blast light through the deep shadows of a Kodachrome without blowing the high highs - something that I could not do using the lamp adjustments in the Coolscans. But both the D800 and the Coolscan V are 14-bit, so their theoretical D-range should be the same, no? I confess to not having a really good handle on this yet -- one of the reasons I appreciate the time the more experienced scanners take to post in these threads.

I was thinking in terms of being able to extract additional DR by recovering highlights in PP that would have values burned in a scanned TIFF. This is sort of theoretical since I haven't had a chance to really wring out what the D800 can do, my thought is that it would be able to blast light through the deep shadows of a Kodachrome without blowing the high highs - something that I could not do using the lamp adjustments in the Coolscans. But both the D800 and the Coolscan V are 14-bit, so their theoretical D-range should be the same, no? I confess to not having a really good handle on this yet -- one of the reasons I appreciate the time the more experienced scanners take to post in these threads.

Kodachromes are a bitch in the Coolscan. No good dust reduction. Color issues, etc. And all chrome scanning had blooming issues in contrasting areas. Highlights would bleed into the shadows, and those would be bulletproof. I'm over it!

Mark, I have profiled SilverFast and the Nikon Coolscan 5000. I generally configure SF for no adjustments other than dust reduction (on chromes), and of course the custom ICC profile made with the Wolf Faust targets. I gave up trying to dial in the best scan preview by tweaking settings. Maybe (probably) I'm clueless, but it's just a P.I.T.A. to deal with. So my RAW vs. RAW comment has more to do with the workflow and the acquisition of the data, but also the flexibility of that data in post capture. I think I'd prefer to massage the CR2/DNG info in LR4, rather than working with a scanned TIF in LR4.

Your thoughts?

OK - no of course you are not clueless. If it's mainly workflow this is totally understandable. There are two factors at play here: the intrinsic quality/features of the software and the taste of the user. And the two may be related of course. I'm reasonably certain that both a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, or a Minolta 5400, for example, can capture every bit as much information as a Canon 5D MKx etc. would. I've worked scanned TIFFs in LR4 as well as a number of raw formats be it from Sony NEX, Canon 1DSMKx or Phase One backs for that matter. A real strength of LR4 is the sheer processing quality regardless of which of these formats you shove through it. In fact I recently received a 3 MB JPG from a friend's Samsung tablet and both of us were amazed at the transformation and IQ that emerged considering where it came from and what it looked like out of the box. Our devices are capturing huge amounts of often unseen data until it is teased out. I'm sure you've had lots of that experience. So where is it best to do the editing - that's the basic issue, and this is partly a matter of taste and partly a matter of application capability. SilverFast has good stuff going for it, LR I think is king of the crop for the things it is designed to do, and of course none of these applications have the full range of capabilities found in Photoshop. So my approach as I've said so often before is not to be dogmatic about this. Learn which applications are particularly useful at which tasks, use them accordingly and you end-up with the best of all worlds. I very much agree with Jeff Schewe's recommendation to bring an open fairly flat image into LR and adjust from there. But I would go further than that and recommend to bring a fairly well-adjusted image into LR and go from there too, making sure in the scan software, however, not to require undoing stuff thereafter. So much depends on the image. I have images where I need all the power I could drum out of both SilverFast and LR to get a usable output. I have others where either would do just as well, and I have others again, where for example, the treatment of shadow detail in LR can't be beat. And then for negatives, there is SilverFast's Negafix which is pretty darn good. So as usual, it depends..............

Kodachromes are a bitch in the Coolscan. No good dust reduction. Color issues, etc. And all chrome scanning had blooming issues in contrasting areas. Highlights would bleed into the shadows, and those would be bulletproof. I'm over it!

I've read about some of this - in fact there's a French publication (Chasseur d'Images - March 2010) that did a very useful review of quite a few scanners and they mentioned a Kodachrome dust reduction issue and grain accentuation (not particularly for Kodachrome) - due to the LED lighting in the Nikon 5000, but not the 9000. Personally, I have processed quite a number of Kodachromes dating from the 1950s upward in both the Minolta 5400 and Nikon 5000 and have not experienced these problems. SilverFast 8 does handle dust and scratch removal using iSRD on Kodachromes very well. Color issues gets back to the profiling question, and it definitely helps to have bespoke Kodachrome profiles made from Kodachrome targets, but it's not foolproof. I usually find some colour adjustment is needed, but not major.

I was thinking in terms of being able to extract additional DR by recovering highlights in PP that would have values burned in a scanned TIFF. This is sort of theoretical since I haven't had a chance to really wring out what the D800 can do, my thought is that it would be able to blast light through the deep shadows of a Kodachrome without blowing the high highs - something that I could not do using the lamp adjustments in the Coolscans. But both the D800 and the Coolscan V are 14-bit, so their theoretical D-range should be the same, no? I confess to not having a really good handle on this yet -- one of the reasons I appreciate the time the more experienced scanners take to post in these threads.

The bit depth is not necessarily determinative of DR. It depends mainly on what is the noise floor of the respective sensors. The recent advances of sensor technology have been so impressive that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that DR from a Nikon D800 or a Sony NEX exceeds that of these older scanners, simply because of how very clean the deep tonal detail from these new cameras has become. That said, I have scanned what seemed like hopeless Kodachromes with very dense shadows, could hardly see anything in them, didn't touch lamp control in the scanner, but used "Multi-Exposure"; then I found it most effective to do the real heavy lifting of the shadow tones in Lightroom. The important point here is that even though the shadows can seem really dense, if you've implemented the scan properly with good scanning software and especially haven't clipped the shadow tones, it does capture the information regardless that you don't see much of it at first, which can be teased-out quite effectively in post-processing - often accompanied by noise - sometimes not so much, sometimes quite visible, depending.

Color issues gets back to the profiling question, and it definitely helps to have bespoke Kodachrome profiles made from Kodachrome targets, but it's not foolproof. I usually find some colour adjustment is needed, but not major.

I only had the lame Kodachrome target slide from Kodak. You could see the Green/Magenta crossover right in the greyscale ramp! I didn't want to spend the extra cash on the SilverFast Kodachrome target. And I'm glad I didn't now that I'm going to sell the scanner.

I only had the lame Kodachrome target slide from Kodak. You could see the Green/Magenta crossover right in the greyscale ramp! I didn't want to spend the extra cash on the SilverFast Kodachrome target. And I'm glad I didn't now that I'm going to sell the scanner.

Interesting observations. Firstly, Kodachrome targets are in very short supply. LaserSoft Imaging appears to have the last stock of them, and when those run out - that's it - finished - no more film and no more processing, anywhere. So they have become quite costly; hence, even if you had bought one, you could probably get your money back and - depending on when you bought it - more than. The one I have is quite neutral. I did have one with a uniform green cast, but they replaced it with a correct one. If you're selling the scanner of course its of no interest at this point - and BTW - that scanner, if it's in good shape, is worth A LOT of money. I've seen used units going for twice the original retail price. Because as much as we are bantering here about avoiding scanning with slide film adapters on cameras, there are still quite a few takers for quality dedicated film-scanners, of which there is precious little choice these days.

SilverFast 8 does handle dust and scratch removal using iSRD on Kodachromes very well.

Mark, That is provided your scanner is equipped with the IR feature! Not to go OT here and hijack the OPs thread, but as of this date Silverfast8 is still not compatable with my Microtek i900 and probably never will be despite Lasersoft telling me to buy Silverfast 8 over a year ago!I have put off digitising my slides too long now,I have been waiting patiently since they promised in a reply to my email that it would be available with all features for my scanner.Maybe when Hell freezes over;-) I cannot even get the scanner software to complete and save a calibration profile in Windows 7 64bit, and it is interesting hear it may not even be necessary (if I am reading this thread correctly).I may just scan and do my editing in ACR. Or go the macro lens and camera route at this point. I am so happy to hear Shewe say what he did about ACR, and being able to do both global and local adjustments ,because this is precisely how I go about doing color correction for clients art reproduction. ACRs adjustment brush even allows me to become an artist and paint in or enhance certain hues that are sometimes lacking in areas of the the cameras RAW capture files and scanned Tiffs ;-)David

Yes you are correct - the scanner must be "infrared enabled" and they do list the models they support that are. Some Microtek models can use SF8, others cannot, so they may provide for the i900 one of these days - only they would know when and I too wouldn't buy SF8 if I knew my scanner isn't on the supported list. Meanwhile, if all you wish to do is drive the scanner and make most of your adjustments in LR/ACR, you could download Vuescan and see whether it works - the Vuescan website says it should.

I generally configure SF for no adjustments other than dust reduction (on chromes), and of course the custom ICC profile made with the Wolf Faust targets. I gave up trying to dial in the best scan preview by tweaking settings. Maybe (probably) I'm clueless, but it's just a P.I.T.A. to deal with. So my RAW vs. RAW comment has more to do with the workflow and the acquisition of the data, but also the flexibility of that data in post capture. I think I'd prefer to massage the CR2/DNG info in LR4, rather than working with a scanned TIF in LR4.

John, your RAW scan is about as close to camera RAW as your scanner can output. It would be very interesting to see a comparison between a good slide (not Kodachrome (hard to scan) and not one of your shitty slides ) scanned and processed in LR vs. photographed with the Canon and processed in LR.

Mark, if assigning a profile to your linear scan didnít make a dramatic difference, then you must have used the wrong profile or a very poor profile. See Andrewís and my examples above. A proper linear profile should make your image look normal.

Neither, but there is a finer point in this I need to investigate and I shall revert on it when ready.

Iíd be interested in your finer point, because what youíre saying doesnít seem possible. On a related subject, I still donít understand why you believe that itís practical to work with linear data directly in LR. Rather than sidetrack this thread with this discussion, however, Iíve started a new thread. Iím always open to learning something new, so I hope you can explain where Iím going wrong. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=74747.0

Interesting observations. Firstly, Kodachrome targets are in very short supply. LaserSoft Imaging appears to have the last stock of them, and when those run out - that's it - finished - no more film and no more processing, anywhere. So they have become quite costly; hence, even if you had bought one, you could probably get your money back and - depending on when you bought it - more than. The one I have is quite neutral. I did have one with a uniform green cast, but they replaced it with a correct one. If you're selling the scanner of course its of no interest at this point - and BTW - that scanner, if it's in good shape, is worth A LOT of money. I've seen used units going for twice the original retail price. Because as much as we are bantering here about avoiding scanning with slide film adapters on cameras, there are still quite a few takers for quality dedicated film-scanners, of which there is precious little choice these days.